Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


ncf355 last won the day on November 30 2009

ncf355 had the most liked content!


465 Excellent
  1. First class, I'm sorry but you are wrong I have a 'first class' credit and a Lloyds club Lloyds account, yet FGW regularly turns down my card on a WSM to Bristol trip (obviously I no longer try...) This is down to their shoddy system, purely and simply As an example I can use the same card on Easyjet 30000 feet in the air without a problem The cynic in me would say they deliberately want people to fail so they can pull the stunt they have on the OP!
  2. I have to disagree with silverfox here If they cannot provide a copy of the original credit agreement, the debt is unenforceable at law As such, via the judgement made in Grace v black horse, they may not report the Default to the CRA whilst the debt remains unenforceable Furthermore, it sounds to me as if there is some ambiguity regards the date the Default commenced Ordinarily this would be 6 month after the last full payment was made
  3. I have recently had the same issue with these lovely people with both mine and my wife's CRA files I wrote to them stating the dates the original creditor put the account in default and demanded that they removed all entries relating to the account, after a few 'we're investigating' type letters, they removed it. Note of caution :just in case, put a heading of "I DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE ANY DEBT TO YOU OR ANY RELATED THIRD PARTY" Also when asking for the removal, refer to it as an account, not a debt Hope that helps
  4. Hi For us to try and help, we'll need some more The credit file only really tells us when the creditor believes you reached default When did you stop paying each account (year and month)? You can normally expect the creditor to default the account by no later than 6 months after the date you either stopped paying altogether, or failed to maintain the minimum contractual payment Then the Default would be removed 6 years after this date
  5. Hi Yes, someone else can take you to court if they have legal assignment from Santander (e.g they bought the debt from Santander) However, there are a number of issues : Have you been served with a default notice from either Santander or the debt purchaser? Have you obtained or did you already have a copy of the loan agreement?
  6. I'd be inclined to keep the plan of attack simple If they are saying they cant supply the loan agreement they are utterly screwed and you have a damn good case for damages In fact, I'd be writing to them quoting the case (Grace v Black Horse) and demanding that they A) Remove the default immediately B) Pay you damages in line to those awarded to Durkin v DSG Retail Ltd (PC World) where he received 8K + interest for mere 'injury to credit' without proof of actual loss (the separate claims for actual loss were disallowed)
  7. Sorry Colin but that's not entirely correct Recent case law in the COA means if they don't have an enforceable agreement they need to remove the Default or face action for damages Lack of any signed agreement (particularly if the agreement was signed Pre April 2007)would give rise to such a claim See Grace v Black Horse
  8. Sorry, apologies to DUTMEB, I missed the line where he said he had made a recent CCA request to Lowell as well as Capital One In that case, absolutely - sit tight!
  9. Hmm Thing is, if they were stupid enough to go for court, costs wise (even if they lost) they could argue if DUTMEB had informed them of the issue with the CCA in the first place, they wouldn't have issued a claim. It's been shown many times that Judges like to see people keeping communications open rather than just ignoring such things Obviously there is a limit, and if they just keep repeating themselves you write a letter stating you have made your position clear and will not communicate further, save responding to any legal action they unwisely take.
  10. I would write informing them that you made a CCA request to Capital One and that the response clearly showed that the agreement failed to meet the prescribed terms of the CCA 1974 and that you therefore consider their claims of court action etc to be invalid and threatening without the legally compliant paperwork. Dear Sir/Madam, I DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE ANY DEBT TO YOU OR A RELATED THIRD PARTY Capital One Account XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Lowell Reference: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX I refer to the above and your recent communications in relation to the same. I would advise that a statutory request for information has previously been made to Capital One in 2009, where there response clearly showed the agreement failed to meet the prescribed terms of the CCA 1974 and was accordingly legally unenforceable - they were advised of the same. I therefore state that I consider your threats of legal action totally without merit and ask you to note that should you unwisely decide to take such an approach it will be vigorously defended. I therefore invite you to cease all communications relating to this alleged debt with immediate effect as no payment will be forthcoming. Yours faithfully, Mr/Mrs X
  11. You need to look into Section 75 of the consumer credit act I totally agree that what has happened to the car is unreasonable failure, can't understand why they aren't covering it all via warranty?
  12. FK Whilst in this case it's of little use use due to the agreement being a post April 2007 Internet application, and therefore subject to a judge's opinion on whether or not it's enforceable (though I'd be interested to see scans of the agreement copies), I don't think this is as clear as you make it out to be. There are rumblings that the Supreme Court definition of Enforceable could indeed be used to get creditors to remove defaults where the agreement is found unenforceable,this is not limited to situations like Durkin, but is also thought to cover those where the agreement is unenforceable under CCA 1974 S127(3),etc.
  13. Brig is correct,however you don't say when the Default occurred? Another thing is if somebody placed a default on my credit file for the sake of £20 they could go and whistle for their £20! There is absolutely no benefit to ”settled" being added to a Default, its still regarded as negative
  14. No Makes no sense whatsoever As far as the information Commissioner is concerned, the Default 6 year period will start ticking from the date on that default notice, so if they ever try to reinstate it you have them bang to rights I must stress that the information Commissioner regards the point of default to be where the breakdown in relationship took place (normally 3 months from the point the last full payment was made, but no more than 6 months) However in your case it suits you to use the date of the default notice They can enter a default on credit files without sending a default notice as the 2 things are not directly connected, but a default notice obviously shows unequivocal proof of a breakdown in relationships
  • Create New...